SCOTUS - US Supreme Court (and other court stuff)

Chris Noyb · Jul 27, 2022

rogue49 said: ↑

Pretty much...

View: https://twitter.com/thejuicemedia/status/1551943982477090816?s=20&t=oyg9xVt_jQCExXkfCCN2Kg
Click to expand...

Dead horse beating alert!

Most people, and many voters, do not understand why appointments to the SCOTUS are
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

Which is why I'm still extremely POd at the Obama administration and the Democratic party for not fighting like hell for Obama's rightful SCOTUS appointee...oh, wait, Hilary was definitely going win, right?

rogue49 · Aug 4, 2022

How Ruth Bader Ginsburg Will Have The Last Laugh on Samuel Alito — POLITICO

Y’better watch out…you might get what you wish for…

Alito is a hack anyway…incredibly biased.
Mr. “You Lie” he shouts to Obama during a SOTU.

Amazing what happens when you ignore a complex situation
To put your own narrow values on everyone else.
Reality hits
And it gets complicated quick.

He’s going to regret his action
But deny it all the same…since he can’t stand admitting failure.

rogue49 · Sep 29, 2022

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Last Seen Obliterating Abortion Rights, Wants Liberal Female Colleague to Shut Her Mouth — Vanity Fair

This particular SCOTUS justice is a scrotum.

This is the same guy who yelled out “You Lie!!!”
Right in the middle of Obama’s State of the Union address.
About nothing particularly important.

He’s ANOTHER radicalized justice…
Just like Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch

Not just conservative, but MAGA level.
AND all are involved with radicalized activities to give the GOP power
If not, actually take over and have a one party country.

Roberts and Brett are actually thinking conservatives that may consider other options…and vote that way.
And neither is trying to create a coup…they are actually sincere, whether you agree with their qualities or not.

Alito is actually obnoxious about it.
And smarmy, for extra negative energy to torture listeners.
He makes me cringe…
May even be worse than Thomas.

How did we get here?
We were actually a sophisticated and intelligent country once.
Yes, that’s an exaggeration
But it makes a point.

Chris Noyb · Sep 29, 2022

rogue49 said: ↑

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Last Seen Obliterating Abortion Rights, Wants Liberal Female Colleague to Shut Her Mouth — Vanity Fair

This particular SCOTUS justice is a scrotum.

This is the same guy who yelled out “You Lie!!!”
Right in the middle of Obama’s State of the Union address.
About nothing particularly important.

He’s ANOTHER radicalized justice…
Just like Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch

Not just conservative, but MAGA level.
AND all are involved with radicalized activities to give the GOP power
If not, actually take over and have a one party country.

Roberts and Brett are actually thinking conservatives that may consider other options…and vote that way.
And neither is trying to create a coup…they are actually sincere, whether you agree with their qualities or not.

Alito is actually obnoxious about it.
And smarmy, for extra negative energy to torture listeners.
He makes me cringe…
May even be worse than Thomas.

How did we get here?
We were actually a sophisticated and intelligent country once.
Yes, that’s an exaggeration
But it makes a point.
Click to expand...

How in the hell did a lowlife like Alito make it onto the SC?

rogue49 · Sep 30, 2022

Chris Noyb said: ↑

How in the hell did a lowlife like Alito make it onto the SC?
Click to expand...

GWB, Dick Cheney & McConnell

Chris Noyb · Oct 1, 2022

rogue49 said: ↑

GWB, Dick Cheney & McConnell
Click to expand...

GWB is back in the news -- sort of -- because of Hurricane Ian. Namely how W played favorites in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

rogue49 · Oct 24, 2022

Justice Thomas agrees to halt Graham testimony in Georgia election probe — The Hill

Now this is complete and utter bullshit.
And a conflict of interest.
Since Thomas’ wife was involved with the election turnover effort.

The audacity of these MAGA-T troopers is profound
They will do anything to wheetle, cheat, distract, delay and CYA for their “own”.

This nation has gotten totally twisted.

Chris Noyb · Oct 24, 2022

Clarence Thomas should be reclused from ANY ruling pertaining to the Big Lie, since his wife has openly admitted (plenty of proof as well) to trying influence people to overturn the election.

And Dandy Graham should definitely have to explain his conversations with officials in Georgia. I need to research the "speech and debate" clause in the constitution. I very seriously doubt that it covers communications made under very suspicious circumstances.

Edited for link

https://constitution.congress.gov/b...ll in all Cases,questioned in any other Place.

Chris Noyb · Nov 11, 2022

Justices cheered at conservative group's anniversary dinner

It seems that our SCJs who are anything but "politically neutral" have a history of openly associating with the Federalist Society.

"Amid heavy security..." At taxpayer's expense, or does the FS actually spend its own money (which it should if it follows its own beliefs)?

Chris Noyb · Nov 15, 2022

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...thomas-after-latest-ruling-jan-6-insurrection

The position of Supreme Court Justice shouldn't be supremely protected.

rogue49 · Nov 24, 2022

The Case for Supreme Court Term Limits Just Got a Lot Better
Nov. 22, 2022 - By Jamelle Bouie - Opinion Columnist

The most striking detail in the recent investigation by The New York Times into another potential Supreme Court breach is not the evidence that Justice Samuel Alito or his wife may have leaked information to conservative friends in 2014 about the outcome of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which extended “religious liberty” to the actions of family-owned corporations.

No, the most striking detail is the extent to which a number of Republican justices, Alito included, appear to have been the targets of a sophisticated and well-funded influence operation designed to notch as many legal and constitutional victories for moneyed and conservative interests as the justices were willing to give.

My colleagues in the newsroom, Jodi Kantor and Jo Becker, describe a kind of revolving door, where wealthy donors to conservative causes invite justices to meals, vacation homes and private clubs; where they contribute money to the Supreme Court Historical Society for the purpose of meeting with and influencing the justices; and where the former head of one such influence operation, Faith and Action, went as far as to purchase a building across the street from the court so that he could cultivate the people who worked there.

Alito denies the allegation that he divulged any information on the court’s proceedings, telling The Times that the claim that friends of his were “told the outcome of the decision in the Hobby Lobby case, or the authorship of the opinion of the court, by me or my wife, is completely false.” Alito also denied the accusation to The Washington Post in similar terms.

Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation,” that they had “a right to monitor government, to shape policy, and to regulate government if they believed their leaders were not responding to the popular will.”

In terms of institutions, and the structure of political representation, this meant short terms of office (delegates to the Confederation Congress served for one year), binding instructions for lawmakers (so that they could not act too independently of their communities) and mandatory “rotation,” or term limits.

Mandatory rotation was especially critical. “Elections, especially of representatives and counsellors, should be annual, there not being in the whole circle of the sciences a maxim more infallible than this, ‘where annual elections end, there slavery begins,’” John Adams wrote in 1776, as British North America erupted into open conflict. “These great men, in this respect, should be one a year—‘Like bubbles on the sea of matter borne, They rise, they break, and to that sea return.’ ”

Most state constitutions of the era made some provision for mandatory rotation. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, for example, deemed it essential to preventing “an inconvenient aristocracy of entrenched officials.” The Maryland Declaration of Rights, written that same year, required mandatory rotation of the executive, stating that “a long continuance in the first executive departments of power or trust, is dangerous to liberty; a rotation, therefore, in those departments, is one of the best securities of permanent freedom.” And under the Articles of Confederation, no person could serve as a delegate to Congress “for more than three years in any term of six years.”

Despite this consensus — so strong that even the more aristocratically inclined Alexander Hamilton endorsed it in a 1782 congressional committee report — there is no provision for anything like mandatory rotation in the federal Constitution.

What happened?

Some of it was practical. James Madison had also endorsed mandatory rotation in that 1782 report, but between then and 1787 he had a change of heart on the question, as a result of instability in the fragile Confederation government.

According to the legal scholar Michael J. Klarman, Madison was worried that mandatory rotation was producing “a change in the federal councils not favorable to those catholic arrangements on which the harmony and stability of the union must greatly depend.” Madison also observed that “experience constantly teaches that new members of a public body do not feel the necessary respect or responsibility for the acts of their predecessors, and that a change of members and of circumstances often proves fatal to consistency and stability of public measures.”

Some of it was ideological. The Constitution was written to restrain democratic energy and popular unrest in the American republic. The point was to put substantial distance between federal officers and elected officials and the people they were supposed to serve.

repeatedly gone to public forums to chastise, even mock, his liberal critics, as if he owes nothing to them or the people they represent.

Most Americans today support Supreme Court term limits. Their reasons vary, but one of the more popular ones is that term limits can help lower the temperature of confirmation battles and reduce the nearly existential stakes of any given appointment.

But looking back to early America, I think there is a better reason to want to pull the judiciary, and the Supreme Court, a little closer to the people. As the antifederalist writer Brutus observed in the midst of the battle to ratify the Constitution, an independent judiciary of this strength, power and lack of accountability is “altogether unprecedented in a free country.”

“This power in the judicial,” Brutus warned, “will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please.”
Click to expand...

I'd be for them.
Lifetime is too much.

People havta remember that way back when the American Founders created the Constitution,
people didn't live long.
So toxic justices tended to leave sooner.

I'd say 10 years is long enough.

Bonus: then with more turn over they'd more likely have a pulse on the current culture and blended in with the typical citizen more.

How the Supreme Court can start to regain Americans’ trust in its ethics
By the Editorial Board November 22, 2022 at 5:10 p.m. EST

Once again, the Supreme Court is finding its ethics under scrutiny. Last week, Justice Clarence Thomas declined to recuse himself in a case involving the plot to overturn Arizona’s 2020 presidential vote, despite his wife’s efforts to pressure state lawmakers to set aside Joe Biden’s victory there. Then the New York Times reported Saturday on allegations that a decision in a 2014 case involving contraception and religious rights leaked to a high-profile abortion foe — a troubling precursor, if true, to the breach that occurred this spring when a draft opinion of its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade became public.

Unlike other federal judges, the justices on the Supreme Court are subject to no code of conduct. It is time for the court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., to set ethics standards for itself that are transparent, consistent and actually work. At stake is no less than its legitimacy, which has been battered by growing public doubts that it truly operates as an apolitical arbiter of the law.

The Post reported in June that Justice Thomas’s wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, urged at least 29 Arizona lawmakers to overturn the popular vote in their state following the 2020 presidential election, asking legislators in one email to “fight back against fraud” and “ensure that a clean slate of Electors is chosen.” Despite his wife’s efforts to upend the election result, Justice Thomas failed to recuse himself earlier this year from a case involving the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack by Trump supporters who were seeking to achieve the same end. The panel, which she had called an “overtly partisan political persecution,” subsequently interviewed Ms. Thomas about her postelection 2020 activities.

Justice Thomas once again declined to recuse himself last week from a case regarding Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward’s alleged efforts to set aside the 2020 presidential vote in her state. He was one of two justices who dissented from the court’s decision allowing the Jan. 6 committee to access some of Ms. Ward’s phone records.

Washington is populated by countless power couples, and conflicts of interest — or appearances of them — are bound to occur from time to time. But Ms. Thomas’s activities stand out as particularly blatant. “Ginni Thomas has held so many leadership or advisory positions at conservative pressure groups that it’s hard to keep track of them,” the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer wrote earlier this year. “And many, if not all, of these groups have been involved in cases that have come before her husband.” One glaring example: Ms. Thomas’s consultancy received more than $200,000 from right-wing activist Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, according to Ms. Mayer, as Mr. Gaffney urged the court to rule favorably on President Donald Trump’s Muslim ban. Justice Thomas voted to uphold the ban, and he did not disclose the $200,000 payment to his wife.

Meanwhile, the Times reported Saturday that a former antiabortion activist, the Rev. Rob Schenck, claims that he was told how the court would rule on a major 2014 birth control case, saying that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. tipped off two associates of his. There is limited corroborating evidence, and Justice Alito and others allegedly involved deny this happened. Yet Mr. Schenck’s contemporaneous emails and conversations indicating that he knew the case’s outcome and the author of the opinion are reason to worry. He says he ran “Operation Higher Court,” a years-long effort among conservative activists to ingratiate themselves with justices via donations to the Supreme Court Historical Society, meals and trips to places such as Jackson Hole, Wyo. “I saw us as pushing the boundaries of appropriateness,” Mr. Schenck said, and the Times’s reporting suggests his operatives achieved high levels of access to certain justices.

An ethics code binds lower-court judges but not Supreme Court justices. Chief Justice Roberts says that justices refer to the code but make their own ethical calls. This is not enough. The justices should formally bind themselves to a judicial code of conduct, rather than simply consulting one when they are so inclined.

Then there is the question of how to enforce such rules. One option is to have the whole court review requests that, for example, certain justices recuse themselves. Another is to create a panel of outside judges, perhaps distinguished retired jurists whose work the high court no longer oversees, to consider Supreme Court ethical questions referred to them.

Critics of such an arrangement point out that, unlike on lower courts, the Supreme Court risks deadlocking 4-4 on major cases if a justice is recused. This could leave important legal questions unresolved and lower courts without definitive precedents to apply. Limiting justices’ work because of their spouses’ conduct, meanwhile, raises the prospect that talented people with professionally active partners will not pursue careers on the bench.

Yet the court’s reputation is indispensable; its power rests both on its constitutional mandate and its credibility. The justices should not continue to dismiss Americans’ declining confidence as the product of misunderstandings about how they work. Moreover, if the court fails to adjust, Congress might step in. Federal lawmakers are considering several reforms, including imposing restrictions on compensated travel and setting requirements that justices must disclose with whom they meet.

Congressional action, however, would no doubt raise separation-of-powers issues. That is all the more reason that justices should acknowledge that they have given the public reason for its mistrust, and take it upon themselves to restore faith in their impartiality.
Click to expand...

AND they should impeach Thomas, if not Alito too for their conflict of interests AND ambiguous questionable activities.
(unfortunately, the House is unlikely going to do anything with a even small GOP control)

I wonder if Biden can do anything as prez??
Other than just expanded the court...

Chris Noyb · Nov 24, 2022

A major problem with SCOTUS term limits: Political support will yo-yo depending on which party is in power and which way the court leans. Repubs all in favor of weakening a left-ist court, & vice-versa. A neutral court would be ideal, but recent events -- and let's not forget the court's failure to stand up to McCarthyism -- show us that isn't always the case.

Will the court actually police itself?
Perhaps the same as do doctors, LEOs,
LEAs, attorneys, & politicians.

redravin · Nov 24, 2022

Chris Noyb said: ↑

A major problem with SCOTUS term limits: Political support will yo-yo depending on which party is in power and which way the court leans. Repubs all in favor of weakening a left-ist court, & vice-versa. A neutral court would be ideal, but recent events -- and let's not forget the court's failure to stand up to McCarthyism -- show us that isn't always the case.

Will the court actually police itself?
Perhaps the same as do doctors, LEOs,
LEAs, attorneys, & politicians.
Click to expand...

I do think we are at a point where adding a extra members wouldn't hurt.
Having extra members wouldn't hurt in terms of how long it would take to make things happen because we actually have technology now.
Making it possible to impeach members (and we know who we are talking about) is a must as well.
It was never foreseen that the wife of a judge would be political activist and that they wouldn't recuse themselves when they should.

Chris Noyb · Nov 24, 2022

redravin said: ↑

I do think we are at a point where adding a extra members wouldn't hurt.
Having extra members wouldn't hurt in terms of how long it would take to make things happen because we actually have technology now.
Making it possible to impeach members (and we know who we are talking about) is a must as well.
It was never foreseen that the wife of a judge would be political activist and that they wouldn't recuse themselves when they should.
Click to expand...

Absolutely there should be ways to remove justices. But the rules would have to be ironclad, not subject to selective enforcement & political whims.

The article mentioned too many rules keeping qualified & quality judges from accepting nominations. That would be legitimate concern.

Chris Noyb · Dec 6, 2022

Supreme Court considers limiting judicial scrutiny in U.S. elections

Can we trust state courts to police the actions of its politicians?

Or should state political leaders & bodies have the/more freedom to draw up districts as they see fit?

Redistricting & gerrymandering are tools used by both parties, & they need to be controlled. One problem is neither party wants truly balanced districts (TBD). A second problem if every state had TBD, political power would (most likely) yo-yo so much we'd end up with coalition governments that would spend more time trying to make deals than actually getting anything useful done.

Giving the state courts more control could be problematic. We've already seen how political appointments can affect the courts. I'm 99% convinced the Texas courts would be completely behind anything that could be considered conservative, and against anything considered progressive and/orliberal.

The recent increase in partisan division reveals
how biased our state courts can be,
what judges will do help a political party
stay in/regain power, &
what they will do to enforce unfair laws.

This' a triple whammy:
We can't trust our politicians to play fair.
We can't trust our state courts to play fair.
We can't trust SCOTUS to play fair.

redravin · Dec 6, 2022

The Supreme Court and Justice Department was absolutely needed to enforce the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.
This is just part of their being in the Leonard Leo and the Federalist Societies back pocket.

rogue49 · Dec 15, 2022

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/13/brett-kavanaugh-justices-ethics-speaking-gigs/

The really need to start looking at the ethics of our top judges.
And acting to get them to restrain themselves.

IMHO, they need a constitutional amendment, make the max time 10 years.
And set the standards higher. (not just anyone...there has to be some background and experience as a judge)

Chris Noyb · Dec 15, 2022

^^ Washington Post paywall. ^^

rogue49 · Apr 6, 2023

Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire — ProPublica

Frankly, Thomas should be impeached.
But there’s no way the GOP led House is going to do it.

But he should worry if the Dems get back the majority…

The man is corrupt, worthless as a justice
And his wife’s actions and connections are just outlandish in traitorous tendencies.

This what impeachment was put in for, in the constitution.

Chris Noyb · Apr 6, 2023

rogue49 said: ↑

Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire — ProPublica

Frankly, Thomas should be impeached.
But there’s no way the GOP led House is going to do it.

But he should worry if the Dems get back the majority…

The man is corrupt, worthless as a justice
And his wife’s actions and connections are just outlandish in traitorous tendencies.

This what impeachment was put in for, in the constitution.
Click to expand...

I just saw that on my news feed.

Thomas' actions don't surprise me at all. He always struck me as a defiant 'I do what I want, I don't give a shit about the rules, or what you think.' person.

Unfortunately I'm learning to expect the GOP leaders, elected and otherwise, to do nothing. It's all about maintaining power, at any cost.

Log in or Sign up

SCOTUS - US Supreme Court (and other court stuff)

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

Log in or Sign up

SCOTUS - US Supreme Court (and other court stuff)

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

Useful Searches